{"id":67113,"date":"2009-01-13T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2009-01-12T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/selvaraj-vs-narayanan-on-13-january-2009"},"modified":"2016-09-27T00:31:21","modified_gmt":"2016-09-26T19:01:21","slug":"selvaraj-vs-narayanan-on-13-january-2009","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/selvaraj-vs-narayanan-on-13-january-2009","title":{"rendered":"Selvaraj vs Narayanan on 13 January, 2009"},"content":{"rendered":"
Kerala High Court<\/div>\n
Selvaraj vs Narayanan on 13 January, 2009<\/div>\n
       \n\n  \n\n  \n\n \n \n  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM\n\nAS.No. 694 of 1996(S)\n\n\n\n1. SELVARAJ\n                      ...  Petitioner\n\n                        Vs\n\n1. NARAYANAN\n                       ...       Respondent\n\n                For Petitioner  :SRI.R.D.SHENOI,SUSHEELA R.BHATT\n\n                For Respondent  :SRI.G.HARIHARAN\n\nThe Hon'ble MR. Justice M.N.KRISHNAN\n\n Dated :13\/01\/2009\n\n O R D E R\n                          M.N. KRISHNAN, J\n                         -----------------------\n                        A.S.No. 694 OF 1996\n                    ---------------------------------\n               Dated this the 13th day of January, 2009\n\n\n                              JUDGMENT\n<\/pre>\n
      This is an appeal preferred against the judgment and decree<\/p>\n
of the Subordinate Judge, Palakkad in O.S.No. 701\/1993. The suit<\/p>\n
is one for specific performance of a contract. It is the case of the<\/p>\n
plaintiff that an agreement has been entered into whereby the 1st<\/p>\n
defendant had agreed to sell the property to the plaintiff for<\/p>\n
Rs. 35,000\/- and a registered agreement was entered into between<\/p>\n
the plaintiff and the 1st defendant.\n<\/p>\n
      2. It is alleged that Rs. 30,000\/- was paid and the stipulation<\/p>\n
was to pay the balance consideration and get the document<\/p>\n
registered on or before 30.10.1993. The plaintiff had sent a lawyer<\/p>\n
notice expressing his readiness to pay the balance and purchase the<\/p>\n
property.    Therefore he had requested the 1st defendant to get<\/p>\n
ready with execution of the assignment deed after vacating the 2nd<\/p>\n
defendant from the plaint schedule premises. On the other hand<\/p>\n
defendant would contend that the property will fetch an amount of<\/p>\n
Rs. 2,00,000\/- and it is not an agreement for sale of the property.<\/p>\n
The 1st defendant was badly in need of some amount and therefore<\/p>\n
A.S. 694\/96
\n                                   -2-<\/span><\/p>\n
he had executed a document and there was no intention to sell the<\/p>\n
property. It is also contended that the plaintiff is not entitled to the<\/p>\n
decree as prayed for.\n<\/p>\n
       3. In the trial court PWs. 1 and 2, Dws. 1 and 2 were<\/p>\n
examined. Exts. A1, A2 and B1 were marked. On analysis of the<\/p>\n
materials, the trial court held that there was no specific pleading<\/p>\n
with respect to the readiness and willingness to perform the<\/p>\n
contract    and   therefore   disallowed   the   prayer    for   specific<\/p>\n
performance, but granted a decree for return of the amount.<\/p>\n
       4. The points that arise for determination are:<\/p>\n
       1. Whether the finding of the trial court that there is non<\/p>\n
compliance of the statutory requirements regarding readiness and<\/p>\n
willingness is correct?\n<\/p>\n
       2. Whether the trial court was right in rejecting the prayer for<\/p>\n
specific performance?\n<\/p>\n
Points 1 & 2:\n<\/p>\n
       At the out set, I may like to state that in a suit of this nature<\/p>\n
it is the first and foremost duty of the court to arrive at a decision<\/p>\n
regarding the nature of the document, when there is a specific<\/p>\n
contention raised in the written statement that it was never<\/p>\n
A.S. 694\/96
\n                                  -3-<\/span><\/p>\n
intended to be an agreement for sale but only as a document<\/p>\n
to receive a loan of Rs. 30,000\/-. Only after entering into a finding<\/p>\n
on that, the further questions really raise for determination. But<\/p>\n
the trial court proceeded with the matter holding that there is non<\/p>\n
compliance of the statutory requirements contemplated under<\/p>\n
Section 16(c) of the Specific Relief Act which states that there must<\/p>\n
be an averment with respect to the readiness and willingness to<\/p>\n
perform his part of the contract.       The learned counsel for the<\/p>\n
appellant had taken me through the pleadings, the notice and the<\/p>\n
various decisions on the point. Ext. A1 is the agreement. It is a<\/p>\n
registered agreement whereby there is an agreement for sale of the<\/p>\n
property for Rs. 35,000\/-.      Rs. 30,000\/- is advanced and the<\/p>\n
plaintiff is bound to pay the balance of Rs. 5,000\/- and get the<\/p>\n
document registered and similarly the defendant is under an<\/p>\n
obligation to execute the document.           The document is dated<\/p>\n
1.4.1993 and the period expires on 30.10.1993.          Thereafter the<\/p>\n
plaintiff issued Ext. A2 notice. It is dated 13.10.93, wherein there<\/p>\n
is a specific intimation that the plaintiff is prepared to pay balance<\/p>\n
consideration of Rs. 5,000\/- for the purpose of getting the<\/p>\n
document executed and he had also demanded that the 1st<\/p>\n
A.S. 694\/96
\n                                    -4-<\/span><\/p>\n
defendant should show the documents of title etc. and also get the<\/p>\n
tenant vacated from the premises of the property. No reply is sent<\/p>\n
to this notice. Thereafter the plaint is filed.<\/p>\n
       5. The terms of the agreement as well as the contends of the<\/p>\n
notice are copied in the plaint but unfortunately the specific word of<\/p>\n
readiness and willingness to perform the part of the contract is not<\/p>\n
specifically stated. It has to be remembered that a perusal of the<\/p>\n
entire plaint would reveal that the case of the plaintiff is to the<\/p>\n
effect that he had entered into an agreement for sale and that he<\/p>\n
had issued a notice, Ext. A2 and he had stated therein that he is<\/p>\n
prepared to pay balance consideration of Rs. 5,000\/- and had<\/p>\n
requested the defendant to full fill his part of the contract.     So in<\/p>\n
other words the notice gives an intimation of the absolute readiness<\/p>\n
and willingness on the part of the plaintiff to perform the contract.<\/p>\n
It has to be also remembered that the only obligation that is left to<\/p>\n
the plaintiff for execution of the document is to pay the balance<\/p>\n
consideration and get the document registered. So it is under these<\/p>\n
circumstances and pleadings one may have to look into the matter.<\/p>\n
It is true that there is a prescription of a form regarding the filing of<\/p>\n
a suit for specific performance and the trial court had relied upon<\/p>\n
A.S. 694\/96
\n                                   -5-<\/span><\/p>\n
the decision of the apex court reported in Ouseph Varghese v.<\/p>\n
Joseph Aley and others<\/a> [1969 (2) SCC 539]. There the apex<\/p>\n
court held that:\n<\/p>\n
        “in a suit for specific performance, the plaintiff should<\/p>\n
        allege that he is ready and willing to perform his part of<\/p>\n
        the contract and in the absence of such an allegation<\/p>\n
        the suit is not maintainable”.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
The apex court had considered this matter in the decision reported<\/p>\n
in Motilal Jain v. Smt.Ramdasi Devi & others<\/a> [JT 2000 (8) SC<\/p>\n
59], wherein the court has taken into consideration the Ouseph<\/p>\n
Varghese’s case. In para 7 of the judgment the apex court held<\/p>\n
that in Vargese’s case the case was based an oral agreement and<\/p>\n
the defendant pleaded a different agreement in regard to which the<\/p>\n
plaintiff neither amended his plaint nor filed subsequent pleading.<\/p>\n
Under these circumstances the apex court held the compliance of<\/p>\n
the mandatory forms of Section 47 and 48 of the First Schedule of<\/p>\n
the Code of Civil Procedure. In this decision the apex court has<\/p>\n
held that:\n<\/p>\n
              “The language in Section 16(c) of the Specific<\/p>\n
        Relief Act, 1963 does not require any specific<\/p>\n
        phraseology but only that the plaintiff must aver that<\/p>\n
        he has performed or has always been and is willing to<\/p>\n
A.S. 694\/96
\n                                 -6-<\/span><\/p>\n
        perform his part of the contract. So the compliance of<\/p>\n
        “readiness and willingness” has to be in the spirit and<\/p>\n
        substance and not in letter and form. It is thus clear<\/p>\n
        that an averment of readiness and willingness in the<\/p>\n
        plaint is not a mathematical formula which should only<\/p>\n
        be in specific words.”<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
      6. To further strengthening the argument the learned counsel<\/p>\n
had further relied upon the decision of the apex court reported in<\/p>\n
Pandurang Ganpat Tanawade v. Ganpat Bhairu Kadam and<\/p>\n
others<\/a> [AIR 1997 SC 463]. Therein the Supreme Court held that<\/p>\n
readiness and willingness to perform can be gathered from the<\/p>\n
following:\n<\/p>\n
       It was a case where there was “averment in the plaint that<\/p>\n
the purchaser had sent notice to the seller to execute the sale deed.<\/p>\n
There has been also averment by the buyer          that as per the<\/p>\n
agreement he is willing to pay fees required for sale deed, costs of<\/p>\n
registration and balance amount of sale deed”.       It was further<\/p>\n
stated that “there was a statement in the deposition before the<\/p>\n
Court by purchaser that he had sent notices to seller and was<\/p>\n
willing to pay fees as aforesaid and balance amount immediately”.<\/p>\n
In such circumstances the Supreme Court held that buyer not only<\/p>\n
A.S. 694\/96
\n                                    -7-<\/span><\/p>\n
averred but also proved that he was ready and willing to perform<\/p>\n
his part of contract as required under Section 16(c). The learned<\/p>\n
counsel then cited the decision reported in Narayan Nagorao v.<\/p>\n
Amrit Haribhau [AIR 1957 BOMBAY 241]. It was a case where<\/p>\n
there was a express statement in the notice regarding willingness to<\/p>\n
perform the part of the contract. It was held that:<\/p>\n
       “In the    circumstances the failure of the plaintiff to<\/p>\n
       express specifically in clear terms his readiness and<\/p>\n
       willingness to perform his part of the contract did not<\/p>\n
       disentitle him to specific performance.”<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n
So in the process of time the strictness of pleadings under Section<\/p>\n
16(c) had undergone changes and when the total materials<\/p>\n
available would show that there has been the readiness and<\/p>\n
willingness to perform the part of the contract by the plaintiff is<\/p>\n
sufficient. The absence of pleadings in the prescribed form does not<\/p>\n
disentitle the plaintiff to get a decree for specific performance of the<\/p>\n
contract.\n<\/p>\n
      7. In view of this, let me analyse from the dictum laid down in<\/p>\n
the above decisions whether in this particular case there is sufficient<\/p>\n
materials to establish the readiness and willingness and which can<\/p>\n
be read into as a pleading as well. It has to be stated that in the<\/p>\n
A.S. 694\/96
\n                                   -8-<\/span><\/p>\n
plaint, notice had been extracted in toto and there is a recital that<\/p>\n
the plaintiff had sent notice to the defendant intimating ”<\/p>\n
So statement in the notice is reiterated in the plaint and therefore<\/p>\n
it gives a clear indication to the defendant about the same. While<\/p>\n
construing the law of pleadings it is a settled proposition that<\/p>\n
isolated reading of some sentence in the pleading is not the<\/p>\n
procedure to be done but the entire pleadings has to be read and<\/p>\n
the substance has to be gathered from the same. So a meticulous<\/p>\n
reading of the plaint would itself indicate that there is a pleading<\/p>\n
with respect to the readiness and willingness which is contemplated<\/p>\n
under law. But it could have been stated precisely and specifically<\/p>\n
so that the confusion should have been averted.         Further it has<\/p>\n
also to be gathered that the defendant even did not bother to send<\/p>\n
a reply notice to the said notice. So from these discussions I hold<\/p>\n
that the trial court was not right in throwing out the case for<\/p>\n
A.S. 694\/96
\n                                  -9-<\/span><\/p>\n
specific performance on the ground that there has been no pleading<\/p>\n
with respect to readiness and willingness to perform the part of the<\/p>\n
contract. I set aside that finding.\n<\/p>\n
      8. Unfortunately this court cannot pass a final judgment in the<\/p>\n
suit for the reason that so many other points require to be<\/p>\n
answered on facts. First of all there has to be a finding with respect<\/p>\n
to the enforceability of Ext. A1 agreement on the basis of the<\/p>\n
contention raised by the defendant in the written statement.<\/p>\n
Secondly the court has to arrive at a finding, who has committed<\/p>\n
the breach of contract.      Thereafter the court has to consider<\/p>\n
whether in the given circumstances the plaintiff is entitled for a<\/p>\n
decree for specific performance in the light of the large number of<\/p>\n
decisions rendered by courts.    Thereafter a final decision has to be<\/p>\n
taken regarding the entitlement of the plaintiff to get a decree for<\/p>\n
specific performance or not.\n<\/p>\n
      9. Therefore the judgment and decree of the trial court are set<\/p>\n
aside and the matter is remitted back to the trial court for fresh<\/p>\n
consideration on the question discussed in the previous paragraphs<\/p>\n
and thereafter dispose of the matter in accordance with law. If the<\/p>\n
parties intend to adduce documentary or further oral evidence in<\/p>\n
A.S. 694\/96
\n                                -10-<\/span><\/p>\n
support of their respective contentions they may be permitted to do<\/p>\n
so and matter be disposed of thereafter as expeditiously as possible<\/p>\n
considering the factum that the litigation has started way back in<\/p>\n
1993.\n<\/p>\n
      Parties are directed to appear before the court below on<\/p>\n
24.2.2009.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
                                          M.N. KRISHNAN,JUDGE<\/p>\n
vkm<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Kerala High Court Selvaraj vs Narayanan on 13 January, 2009 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM AS.No. 694 of 1996(S) 1. SELVARAJ … Petitioner Vs 1. NARAYANAN … Respondent For Petitioner :SRI.R.D.SHENOI,SUSHEELA R.BHATT For Respondent :SRI.G.HARIHARAN The Hon’ble MR. Justice M.N.KRISHNAN Dated :13\/01\/2009 O R D E R M.N. KRISHNAN, J ———————– A.S.No. […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_lmt_disableupdate":"","_lmt_disable":"","_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[8,21],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-67113","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-high-court","category-kerala-high-court"],"yoast_head":"\nSelvaraj vs Narayanan on 13 January, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India<\/title>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/selvaraj-vs-narayanan-on-13-january-2009\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Selvaraj vs Narayanan on 13 January, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/selvaraj-vs-narayanan-on-13-january-2009\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"2009-01-12T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2016-09-26T19:01:21+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:type\" content=\"image\/jpeg\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:creator\" content=\"@legaliadmin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:site\" content=\"@Legal_india\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"10 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/selvaraj-vs-narayanan-on-13-january-2009#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/selvaraj-vs-narayanan-on-13-january-2009\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Selvaraj vs Narayanan on 13 January, 2009\",\"datePublished\":\"2009-01-12T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2016-09-26T19:01:21+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/selvaraj-vs-narayanan-on-13-january-2009\"},\"wordCount\":1929,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"High Court\",\"Kerala High Court\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/selvaraj-vs-narayanan-on-13-january-2009#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/selvaraj-vs-narayanan-on-13-january-2009\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/selvaraj-vs-narayanan-on-13-january-2009\",\"name\":\"Selvaraj vs Narayanan on 13 January, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2009-01-12T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2016-09-26T19:01:21+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/selvaraj-vs-narayanan-on-13-january-2009#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/selvaraj-vs-narayanan-on-13-january-2009\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/selvaraj-vs-narayanan-on-13-january-2009#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Selvaraj vs Narayanan on 13 January, 2009\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"name\":\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"description\":\"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.\",\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"alternateName\":\"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Organization\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\",\"name\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"alternateName\":\"Legal India\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"logo\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"width\":512,\"height\":512,\"caption\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.facebook.com\\\/LegalindiaCom\\\/\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/Legal_india\"]},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\",\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"caption\":\"Legal India Admin\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/legaliadmin\"],\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/author\\\/legal-india-admin\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"Selvaraj vs Narayanan on 13 January, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/selvaraj-vs-narayanan-on-13-january-2009","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Selvaraj vs Narayanan on 13 January, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/selvaraj-vs-narayanan-on-13-january-2009","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2009-01-12T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2016-09-26T19:01:21+00:00","og_image":[{"width":512,"height":512,"url":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1","type":"image\/jpeg"}],"author":"Legal India Admin","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_creator":"@legaliadmin","twitter_site":"@Legal_india","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Legal India Admin","Est. reading time":"10 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/selvaraj-vs-narayanan-on-13-january-2009#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/selvaraj-vs-narayanan-on-13-january-2009"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Selvaraj vs Narayanan on 13 January, 2009","datePublished":"2009-01-12T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2016-09-26T19:01:21+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/selvaraj-vs-narayanan-on-13-january-2009"},"wordCount":1929,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["High Court","Kerala High Court"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/selvaraj-vs-narayanan-on-13-january-2009#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/selvaraj-vs-narayanan-on-13-january-2009","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/selvaraj-vs-narayanan-on-13-january-2009","name":"Selvaraj vs Narayanan on 13 January, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2009-01-12T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2016-09-26T19:01:21+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/selvaraj-vs-narayanan-on-13-january-2009#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/selvaraj-vs-narayanan-on-13-january-2009"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/selvaraj-vs-narayanan-on-13-january-2009#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Selvaraj vs Narayanan on 13 January, 2009"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","description":"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.","publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"alternateName":"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Organization","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization","name":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","alternateName":"Legal India","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","logo":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","width":512,"height":512,"caption":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","https:\/\/x.com\/Legal_india"]},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea","name":"Legal India Admin","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","url":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","contentUrl":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","caption":"Legal India Admin"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com","https:\/\/x.com\/legaliadmin"],"url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/author\/legal-india-admin"}]}},"modified_by":null,"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack_likes_enabled":true,"jetpack-related-posts":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/67113","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=67113"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/67113\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=67113"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=67113"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=67113"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}